WASHINGTON—Majority conservatives on the Supreme Court criticized one of the pillars of 1960s civil-rights legislation, suggesting the Voting Rights Act had outlived its relevance and was imposing undue burdens on states whose practices are subject to extra federal supervision.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act targets states that historically discriminated against minorities, and Section 5 requires some localities, particularly in the South, to get approval in advance from Washington for changes to their voting laws.

ENLARGE

Activists hold placards outside the Supreme Court in Washington Wednesday, as justices considered a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Getty Images

At the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts reeled off statistics showing that African-American turnout is now high in Mississippi and relatively low in Massachusetts, suggesting that the South has no monopoly on voting discrimination. Are "citizens in the South more racist than citizens in the North?" he asked the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

"I do not know the answer to that," Mr. Verrilli replied. But, he said, the court shouldn't second-guess Congress's determination that certain areas require special oversight to prevent violations of the 15th Amendment's guarantee of voting rights.

More

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested covered states were demeaned by the Voting Rights Act's requirement for preclearance of voting changes. The requirement effectively put some states under the "trusteeship of the United States government."

"What do you think the Civil War was about?" said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Of course, it was aimed at treating some states differently than others."

Varying Views

ENLARGE

"This is a question of renewing a statute that by and large has worked." JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER
Associated Press

ENLARGE

"The Marshall Plan was very good, too, the Morrill Act, the Northwest Ordinance, but times change." JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY
Associated Press

ENLARGE

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes." JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
Getty Images

Along with the 13th and 14th Amendments, the 15th Amendment was ratified following the Confederacy's defeat to cement the Union's war aims into the Constitution.

While justices' questions often indicate how they plan to vote, they don't necessarily foretell the final decision. A ruling in the present case is expected by late June.

Under Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court has given a critical eye to measures intended to help minorities, with conservatives outvoting liberals to hold that such goals are outweighed by other constitutional considerations. In 2007, the court barred school districts from adopting policies that consider race in order to promote classroom diversity, finding that the practice violated white students' rights to equal protection of the laws.

In the current term, the court is deciding a case involving an affirmative-action policy at the University of Texas, and the court may reverse at least part of a 2003 ruling that allowed some consideration of race in university admissions.

Many consider the Voting Rights Act the most effective legislation of the civil-rights era, and even conservative justices acknowledged its historic role.

"There is no question that the Voting Rights Act has done enormous good. It's one of the most successful statutes that Congress passed in the twentieth century," said Justice Samuel Alito. But, he said, Congress may have failed to demonstrate that preclearance remains justifiable today—or that only some states should be selected for special scrutiny.

Mr. Verrilli argued that the act is designed to reflect changing times, allowing covered jurisdictions with clean records of at least 10 years to "bail out" of preclearance.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in August 1965, five months after Bloody Sunday, when state and local police in Selma, Ala., attacked voting-rights marchers.

Congress repeatedly has reauthorized the act, most recently in 2006, when President George W. Bush signed bipartisan legislation extending it 25 years.

But while past high-court rulings rejected challenges to the preclearance requirement, in a 2009 decision the justices signaled that the formula for selecting jurisdictions covered by Section 5, last updated with the 1972 election results, may not reflect progress in race relations.

Although the 2009 preclearance decision was adopted 8-1, it was widely seen as a temporary compromise between the court's conservative and liberal wings, allowing Congress breathing room to amend the act. Congress took no action, and on Wednesday the façade of agreement in 2009 fell away to reveal sharp divisions between conservative and liberal justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the liberal wing pressed the lawyer challenging Section 5, Bert Rein, representing Shelby County, Ala. Perhaps "some portions of the South have changed," said Justice Sotomayor, but "your county pretty much hasn't." Thanks to Section 5, the Justice Department was able to block 240 discriminatory voting laws there, she said.

Justice Elena Kagan agreed, saying that while covered jurisdictions hold less than 25% of the U.S. population, they account for 56% of successful voting-rights lawsuits.

Mr. Rein said the Alabama Legislature has a proportionate number of black members, and black voter registration today is far higher than half a century ago. Forcing states to comply with Section 5 now because of a formula using 1972 data demeans their right to "equal dignity" with states whose election laws are presumptively valid, he said.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.